I ran a 5:56 1600m with a few weeks of training starting of pretty unfit. Does this indicate anything other than the norm?
I ran a 5:56 1600m with a few weeks of training starting of pretty unfit. Does this indicate anything other than the norm?
I guess it depends on who you ask. If you ask the freaks of nature on here, it's indicative of a bit of talent; to me that indicates a lot, you could improve vastly from here. My pb right now after 3 weeks of training since not running from high school (6 or 7 years) is 6:50. It's turtle pace compared to the guys here but I'm pretty satisfied with it.
David Epstein's"the sports gene" explains that talent comes in many forms. One is naturally high endurance. Another is trainability. Your endurance is probably far above the average human, but mediocre by LetsRun standards (everyone here runs a sub4mile 14:30 5k and makes $250k per year and has a conventionally attractive wife). Your trainability is the deciding factor in your level of talent. Some guys run 4:45 going into high school and then only improve to 4:35 by their senior year. Some guys start at 4:45 and end up at 4:15. Way too many factors in play to decide your talent level. Also, what do you mean zero physical activity? Did you walk or ride your bike or swim or play pickup basketball? All those things will affect your fitness.
I am actually still in high school but this is the first time I did track. By no physical activity I mean I didn't do any sports, jog, or anything physically intensive at all. Maybe 2 km total walking to the bus stop and back along with the sum of the distances to and fro from class to class
Are you a girl? If so, yes. If boy, no way.
I ran 5:30 or something in the 5th grade when we had to do a stupid time trial to qualify for some Presidential Fitness award or some nonsense like that.